Lawmakers consider expanding mental health law

SACRAMENTO, Calif. 
Lawmakers from both parties are seeking to expand a decade-old law that lets counties pursue court-ordered mental health treatment for those who refuse to get help on their own.

The renewed focus on Laura's Law, which is in place in just two of California's 58 counties, comes as lawmakers seek ways to stop the kinds of mass violence experienced last year in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo. Both shootings involved young men with mental health troubles.

The law, enacted by the Legislature in 2002, can be used only if a judge finds that a patient is not getting treatment voluntarily, has a history of hospitalization or violent behavior, and may be dangerous.

A lack of money and the ongoing controversy over forcing the mentally ill into treatment has led most counties to decide against enacting it. Some object to forced treatment if no crime has been committed. Others say the prospect could deter the mentally ill from seeking treatment voluntarily for fear they could wind up under court-ordered supervision.

Top Democratic lawmakers now say the benefits outweigh the risks, and Republicans who oppose firearms restrictions are turning their attention to mental health issues as a way to address the violence.

Five lawmakers, including the Democratic leader of the state Senate and the Republican leader in the Assembly, have introduced bills that would expand the law or provide funding to support it:

- SB585 by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and AB1367 by Assemblyman Allan Mansoor, R-Costa Mesa, would allow counties to use Proposition 63 money for Laura's Law. The Mental Health Services Act, which was authored by Steinberg, was approved by voters eight years ago and raises $1 billion a year for early intervention and treatment through a special tax on millionaires.

- SB664, by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, lets counties use existing revenue for Laura's Law, implement it without a vote of their board of supervisors and clarifies that counties can partially implement the law. Los Angeles County has a small pilot program, but other counties have objected that they lack the legal authority to start limited treatment.

- SB755, by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, adds someone treated under Laura's Law to the list of those prohibited from owning firearms, among other provisions.

- AB1265, by Assembly Minority Leader Connie Conway, R-Tulare, extends the initial period of court-ordered treatment under Laura's Law from six months to one year.

Steinberg said state funding should not differentiate between those who receive services voluntarily or involuntarily. He and Prop. 63 co-author Rusty Selix said the greater emphasis should be on getting more money for mental health services in general.

Selix, executive director of Mental Health America of California, is among those worrying that people treated against their will may be reluctant to seek help in the future. He also worries that Laura's Law could be seen as a panacea, when it would in fact apply to a small population that cannot be helped under other laws.

Yee, a child psychologist, is impatient with mental health professionals who he said are reluctant to seek involuntary treatment even when it seems to be in their patients' best interest. Other opposition, he said, seems to be from those who worry that spending more money on Laura's Law will siphon money from their programs.